Hi Guest:
Welcome to TRIBE, Toronto's largest and longest running online community. If you'd like to post here, or reply to existing posts on TRIBE, you first have to register on the forum. You can register with your facebook ID or with an email address. Join us!

Skeptics: praktik and ______ (not too many wingmen helping me out substantively but I am feeling the love from some supportive comments! - post all your commentary on conspiracy shit here!

Let me start with the SA article I posted. Let's try to push current conspiracy talk from Boston/Waco threads here and keep this one going. Maybe one day it will rival "Nobody Cares" in postcount the way it does already in substance! (hehe)

Did NASA fake the moon landing? Is the government hiding Martians in Area 51? Is global warming a hoax? And what about the Boston Marathon bombing…an “inside job” perhaps?

In the book “The Empire of Conspiracy,” Timothy Melley explains that conspiracy theories have traditionally been regarded by many social scientists as “the implausible visions of a lunatic fringe,” often inspired by what the late historian Richard Hofstadter described as “the paranoid style of American politics.” Influenced by this view, many scholars have come to think of conspiracy theories as paranoid and delusional, and for a long time psychologists have had little to contribute other than to affirm the psychopathological nature of conspiracy thinking, given that conspiricist delusions are commonly associated with (schizotype) paranoia.

Yet, such pathological explanations have proven to be widely insufficient because conspiracy theories are not just the implausible visions of a paranoid minority. For example, a national poll released just this month reports that 37 percent of Americans believe that global warming is a hoax, 21 percent think that the US government is covering up evidence of alien existence and 28 percent believe a secret elite power with a globalist agenda is conspiring to rule the world. Only hours after the recent Boston marathon bombing, numerous conspiracy theories were floated ranging from a possible ‘inside job’ to YouTube videos claiming that the entire event was a hoax.

So why is it that so many people come to believe in conspiracy theories? They can't all be paranoid schizophrenics. New studies are providing some eye-opening insights and potential explanations.

For example, while it has been known for some time that people who believe in one conspiracy theory are also likely to believe in other conspiracy theories, we would expect contradictory conspiracy theories to be negatively correlated. Yet, this is not what psychologists Micheal Wood, Karen Douglas and Robbie Suton found in a recent study. Instead, the research team, based at the University of Kent in England, found that many participants believed in contradictory conspiracy theories. For example, the conspiracy-belief that Osama Bin Laden is still alive was positively correlated with the conspiracy-belief that he was already dead before the military raid took place. This makes little sense, logically: Bin Laden cannot be both dead and alive at the same time. An important conclusion that the authors draw from their analysis is that people don't tend to believe in a conspiracy theory because of the specifics, but rather because of higher-order beliefs that support conspiracy-like thinking more generally. A popular example of such higher-order beliefs is a severe “distrust of authority.” The authors go on to suggest that conspiracism is therefore not just about belief in an individual theory, but rather an ideological lens through which we view the world. A good case in point is Alex Jones’s recent commentary on the Boston bombings. Jones, (one of the country’s preeminent conspiracy theorists) reminded his audience that two of the hijacked planes on 9/11 flew out of Boston (relating one conspiracy theory to another) and moreover, that the Boston Marathon bombing could be a response to the sudden drop in the price of gold or part of a secret government plot to expand the Transportation Security Administration’s reach to sporting events. Others have pointed their fingers to a ‘mystery man’ spotted on a nearby roof shortly after the explosions. While it remains unsure whether or not credence is given to only some or all of these (note: contradicting) conspiracy theories, there clearly is a larger underlying preference to support conspiracy-type explanations more generally.

Interestingly, belief in conspiracy theories has recently been linked to the rejection of science. In a paper published in Psychological Science, Stephen Lewandowsky and colleagues investigated the relation between acceptance of science and conspiricist thinking patterns. While the authors' survey was not representative of the general population, results suggest that (controlling for other important factors) belief in multiple conspiracy theories significantly predicted the rejection of important scientific conclusions, such as climate science or the fact that smoking causes lung cancer.[/B] Yet, rejection of scientific principles is not the only possible consequence of widespread belief in conspiracy theories. Another recent study indicates that receiving positive information about or even being merely exposed to conspiracy theories can lead people to become disengaged from important political and societal topics. For example, in their study, Daniel Jolley and Karen Douglas clearly show that participants who received information that supported the idea that global warming is a hoax were less willing to engage politically and also less willing to implement individual behavioral changes such as reducing their carbon footprint. [praktik - this is my main problem with CT theory]

These findings are alarming because they show that conspiracy theoriessow public mistrust and undermine democratic debate by diverting attention away from important scientific, political and societal issues. There is no question as to whether the public should actively demand truthful and transparent information from their governments and proposed explanations should be met with a healthy amount of scepticism, yet, this is not what conspiracy theories offer. A conspiracy theory is usually defined as an attempt to explain the ultimate cause of an important societal event as part of some sinister plot conjured up by a secret alliance of powerful individuals and organizations. The great philosopher Karl Popper argued that the fallacy of conspiracy theories lies in their tendency to describe every event as 'intentional' and 'planned' thereby seriously underestimating the random nature and unintended consequences of many political and social actions.In fact, Popper was describing a cognitive bias that psychologists now commonly refer to as the “fundamental attribution error”: the tendency to overestimate the actions of others as being intentional rather than the product of (random) situational circumstances.

Since a number of studies have shown that belief in conspiracy theories is associated with feelings of powerlessness, uncertainty and a general lack of agency and control, a likely purpose of this bias is to help people “make sense of the world” by providing simple explanations for complex societal events — restoring a sense of control and predictability. A good example is that of climate change: while the most recent international scientific assessment report (receiving input from over 2500 independent scientists from more than a 100 countries) concluded with 90 percent certainty that human-induced global warming is occurring, the severe consequences and implications of climate change are often too distressing and overwhelming for people to deal with, both cognitively as well as emotionally. Resorting to easier explanations that simply discount global warming as a hoax is then of course much more comforting and convenient psychologically. Yet, as Al Gore famously pointed out, unfortunately, the truth is not always convenient.

---

ABOUT THE AUTHOR(S)
Sander van der Linden is a doctoral candidate in social-environmental psychology at the London School of Economics and Political Science (Grantham Research Institute) and currently a visiting research scholar with the Yale Project on Climate Change Communication at Yale University. His research focuses on behavioral change, the psychology of communication and the construction of human risk perception.

Not sure if anyone posted this article yet, but I thought it was pretty good:

There is no question as to whether the public should actively demand truthful and transparent information from their governments and proposed explanations should be met with a healthy amount of skepticism, yet, this is not what conspiracy theories offer. A conspiracy theory is usually defined as an attempt to explain the ultimate cause of an important societal event as part of some sinister plot conjured up by a secret alliance of powerful individuals and organizations. The great philosopher Karl Popper argued that the fallacy of conspiracy theories lies in their tendency to describe every event as ‘intentional’ and ‘planned’ thereby seriously underestimating the random nature and unintended consequences of many political and social actions. In fact, Popper was describing a cognitive bias that psychologists now commonly refer to as the “fundamental attribution error”: the tendency to overestimate the actions of others as being intentional rather than the product of (random) situational circumstances.

Ya Salon/Alternet/Slate have all been covering CTs regularly so not surprised to see the Salon repost (though I think its high time they change their f*cking layout)

My feeling is these left/liberal outlets see CTs siphoning away a lot of potential support for their causes as they hive believers off into the wilderness, from the SA article:

Yet, rejection of scientific principles is not the only possible consequence of widespread belief in conspiracy theories. Another recent study indicates that receiving positive information about or even being merely exposed to conspiracy theories can lead people to become disengaged from important political and societal topics. For example, in their study, Daniel Jolley and Karen Douglas clearly show that participants who received information that supported the idea that global warming is a hoax were less willing to engage politically and also less willing to implement individual behavioral changes such as reducing their carbon footprint. ​

debating a conspiracy theorist is like debating a fervent religious believer about the existence of god.....there is actually no way to win the argument because CTers follow a belief system like a religion. you can point to all the evidence in favour of the reported story but they will always believe that there is a sinister government plot behind it all much like a religious adherent believes that God is behind everything even if they have to massively twist the truth or point at marginal pieces of information to arrive at that belief.

My feeling is these left/liberal outlets see CTs siphoning away a lot of potential support for their causes as they hive believers off into the wilderness

Click to expand...

I concur. So does Noam.

I think this reaches the heart of the matter. One of the major consequences of the 9/11 movement has been to draw enormous amounts of energy and effort away from activism directed to real and ongoing crimes of state, and their institutional background, crimes that are far more serious than blowing up the WTC would be, if there were any credibility to that thesis. -- Noam Chomsky

chris kyle and his range partner were shot by a solider on range he was trying to help cope with PTSD. no mystery other than why they though it was a good idea to take someone in a fragile mental state to a shooting range.

correlation and causation.

***increase in organic food sales are not linked to autism fyi...see what i did there.

debating a conspiracy theorist is like debating a fervent religious believer about the existence of god.....there is actually no way to win the argument because CTers follow a belief system like a religion. you can point to all the evidence in favour of the reported story but they will always believe that there is a sinister government plot behind it all much like a religious adherent believes that God is behind everything even if they have to massively twist the truth or point at marginal pieces of information to arrive at that belief.

Click to expand...

Yep except I thought about this last night and thought well - wait a minute - I can debate a lot of modern Christians because the faith, at least as practised by people here in Canada that I know, has over the course of time relinquished a lot of its religious claims on matters of fact out there in the real world. The sun is no longer purported to go around the earth, the age of the earth is more than 6,000 years old - over a few millennia the Real World has eroded away most of these claims the faith used to make about the world around us.

Now it is winnowed back so the only debates left are the cosmic ones. There are plenty of christians in science for instance, whose faith is not in conflict with their science because it doesn't actually make any claims on science anymore! Its been pushed back to the "gaps" - and so we have Christians working in archaeology and astronomy now because their God doesn't have to be messing with that shit anymore, its a higher-level belief where God is understood to be a high-level creator who "set the table" for all the naturally occurring phenomenon being witnessed. The conflict is defused.

So I feel I can actually debate with most Christians I know more than most Conspiracy Theorists, because our worldviews and basic questions of fact in the world around us are not in conflict anymore.

I realize there are nuggets of faith that still make a lot of claims about global warming, the age of the earth and evolution - but I see that as a Bigger Deal in America than it is in my personal life - I have met many conspiracy climate change deniers but ZERO christian climate deniers like the kinds we see quoted in the US. It is interesting to note that where faith is most contentious still is where pockets of it still persist in making faith-based claims about facts in the world around us - where this has lapsed there is very little controversy anymore.

The problem with modern conspiracy culture is that it makes demonstrably false claims about shit all around us, from a lack of understanding causing people to see differently shaped contrails as evidence for chemtrails, to confuse correlation with causation and mistakenly blame autism on vaccines, to a lack of expertise leading people to believe it impossible for the towers to fall without a controlled demolition. This immediately puts conspiracy enthusiasts in conflict with anyone else who doesn't share their misreading of the facts - and in the large contours - I think puts conspiracy culture in a similar category to Scientology, evangelical movement conservatism in the US south (actually that's also a hotbed for many secular conspiracies) and Catholicism that prescribed how to understand the stars or how condoms are bad.

One of the only "conspiracies" that i actually believe. He's a retired CIA high ranked memebr who was deeply involved in the Iran-Contra situation. He spills the beans on millions upon millions of dollars of Fraud that was committed by the US Elite as a way to raise funds for the cause.

Too much of it makes sense, and there are too many "big players" or people who know to much, that have been killed in really weird unconventional ways.

One of the only "conspiracies" that i actually believe. He's a retired CIA high ranked memebr who was deeply involved in the Iran-Contra situation. He spills the beans on millions upon millions of dollars of Fraud that was committed by the US Elite as a way to raise funds for the cause.

Too much of it makes sense, and there are too many "big players" or people who know to much, that have been killed in really weird unconventional ways.

On the list now! Thanks brosef. Iran-Contra was some shameful shit and I think along with Nixon, a necessary lesson we should all recognize: elites have relative impunity, the rest of us get the sharp-end of the stick.

I was livid during the Bush admin to see so many of these criminals get gainful employment in his admin - then I realized they were actually employed the whole damn time giving talks, working at think tanks and political organizing, so it wasn't like the Bush admin brought them out of the wilderness... still, you shouldn't have record of executive lawbreaking and then be invited into a subsequent executive administration! But I guess their ideology was aligned and a big part of it I think is the fact the modern Republican party has become so extremist that law-breaking criminals from Iran-Contra have halos around them for being such awesome Patriots back in the day of Saint Reagan.

The bigger question is "why do you want to debate CT people in the first place"?

What's the point other than feeling better about YOURSELF by telling someone what they believe in is false because their "data" doesn't add up.

I get the debate is someone else starts it, but the time wasted could be better spent No?

Click to expand...

Yep I've already admitted here and elsewhere that there is likely some ego-stroking at play here. But then again I am debating people who put themselves on similar pedestals and have the same ego @ work - and heck, this is probably a near universal tendency (for people to feel they are right and to enjoy feeling validated in being right).

Beyond this though I think that with this stuff showing up on Tribe + Facebook frequently that I have something of a duty to post a point of view so that these ridiculous claims are not out there without a dissenting voice offering a correction. I feel a bit of a built-in duty - because I don't see anyone else here on tribe taking up the mantle with the gusto I devote to it... The message of conspiracy theory is also in direct conflict with my institutional/systemic view of world politics - and so I am also driven by a sense of responsibility to history to try and dismantle their re-writing of it. If I am truly concerned about the environment (global warming), human health (vaccines), inequality+war (elite malfeasance) then CT ideas will be in direct conflict with my views as to what needs to be done.

More fundamentally the clash of worldviews puts me in direct conflict with them as they are attached to a Good vs Evil, Manichaean view and I reject that "with us or against us"/cosmic struggle completely. My world involves shades of grey where evil outcomes are often the product of good intentions and evil actors don't actually know they are evil - they have just internalized a serious of assumptions that have them supporting horrible policies/actions. I also am comfortable with chance/randomness and they believe in a world where "nothing is a coincidence".

Finally i have close connections with a few CTers including a sister who married a committed Alex Jones fan. So there is a personal motivation from my personal life to be a voice offering a skeptical interpretation of CT theory.

On the list now! Thanks brosef. Iran-Contra was some shameful shit and I think along with Nixon, a necessary lesson we should all recognize: elites have relative impunity, the rest of us get the sharp-end of the stick.

I was livid during the Bush admin to see so many of these criminals get gainful employment in his admin - then I realized they were actually employed the whole damn time giving talks, working at think tanks and political organizing, so it wasn't like the Bush admin brought them out of the wilderness... still, you shouldn't have record of executive lawbreaking and then be invited into a subsequent executive administration! But I guess their ideology was aligned and a big part of it I think is the fact the modern Republican party has become so extremist that law-breaking criminals from Iran-Contra have halos around them for being such awesome Patriots back in the day of Saint Reagan.

Click to expand...

Totally!!!

The names that he mentiones in this book, are all the main players of the Bush Cabinet. He calls out Karl Rove as being the mastermind of it all.

Too much of it makes sense, and there are too many "big players" or people who know to much, that have been killed in really weird unconventional ways.

Click to expand...

that doesn't stop with the Iran Contra dealio. it's amazing to look at the lists of dead people in the lives of, let's say, just the last 3 or 4 U.S. presidents. all people ready to talk, or knew something and could no longer be trusted.

... but before I do that. Just one more question. What PROOF do you have that OBL was responsible for 9/11?

Click to expand...

What PROOF is there that OJ killed Nicole?

Dude I already offered the Mafia Don analogy - I actually don't think OBL planned the specifics at all. His responsibility is akin to a mafia don. Are you amenable to changing the framing here to "AQ" rather than OBL? Does that change anything for you?

I have read through all of the articles you posted, and, rather than presenting any evidence that he was responsible, those articles confirmed to me that he was not involved. It took almost a year before he kind of said "uhhh... yeah sure it was me!... I guess... " (paraphrased of course). And that's only if you take it at face value that the source that supposedly said that thing was actually Bin Laden. There is no way to prove it was.

Click to expand...

These are not adequate responses commensurate with an ability to say you have effectively tangled with the arguments and evidence I posted. You didn't actually quote any of the elements you thought "confirmed to me that he was not involved". You did not offer any evidence to suggest that the quotes were doctored or faked. You act like you dismantled my arguments but all you did was dismiss - with ZERO effort expended to justify your dismissal.

Go ahead maphi I know you consult a lot of sources out there. How about you start documenting an argument of your own here? What evidence is there to support your contention that OBL and maybe even AQ weren't responsible? Who offers a credible narrative to you that you can share with us so we can consult that source on our own time?

-----

What I would suggest is that we maybe abandon the AQ/OBL question for other ones as it seems you don't really have an interest in discussing that (otherwise you would have spent more effort articulating why I'm wrong and making a positive case for your claims). Some potential options for us:

- Controlled Demolition: do you believe it was a controlled demolition? This question rests on basic questions of science and may be more fruitful ground for our discussion (though our previous threads on tribe on WTC7 may mean this will also be futile)
- Motive: what would be the motive for the false flag, and what evidence can you offer to back that motive up?
- Missile at the pentagon
- other aspects of 9/11? Occult symbolism of 9/11 maybe?

----

I am also happy to change topics completely and get into chemtrails and/or vaccines...

So far - by my count - I have three substantive posts articulating arguments for my case and 5 sources.

Currently you have two snide dismissals with no backup and zero sources - and you're the one waiting for ME to do more legwork?

Show the strength of your convictions by the amount of effort you devote to your responses! So far you appear to be an "armchair conspiracy theorist", unable or unwilling to articulate your own arguments...happier instead to shoot down ideas without expending any real effort.

praktik...
do you think main stream media in the U.S. is tainted especially when it comes to recent events involving The Government ?
and what are your thoughts about The Harper Government wanting to tighten the leash on the CBC ?